Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:46:34 -0500 From: Anish Mistry <mistry.7@osu.edu> To: "Samuel J. Greear" <freebsd-hackers@evilcode.net> Cc: Chris Hodgins <chodgins@cis.strath.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Idea about 'skeleton jail Message-ID: <200503141346.41722.mistry.7@osu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200503140915.53619.freebsd-hackers@evilcode.net> References: <1107178792.613.22.camel@spirit> <200503131524.16075.mistry.7@osu.edu> <200503140915.53619.freebsd-hackers@evilcode.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Monday 14 March 2005 10:15 am, Samuel J. Greear wrote: > On Sunday 13 March 2005 14:24, Anish Mistry wrote: > > On Sunday 13 March 2005 01:23 pm, Chris Hodgins wrote: > > > Samuel J. Greear wrote: > > > > Not a bad 'idea' at all, although I won't comment on > > > > semantics. I had something implemented using fs stacking (in > > > > a very hackish way, and I believe it's lost now, so don't ask > > > > to see it...) to implement per-jail quota's that seemed to > > > > work quite well. > > > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > Feel free to comment on the semantics. As I said before, I am > > > not very knowledgable about filesystems and any insight or > > > alternative implementation you can provide would be interesting > > > I'm sure to everyone. > > > > Yeah, if there was jailfs that was setup automatically for the > > jails that supported quotas out of the box that would kill my > > major gripe about setting up jails. > > Chris, your concept looks reasonable to me. I think I would > probably do something along those lines but borrow some idea's from > my 'jail-build' script. It has the concept of both includes and > excludes, but it also handles another directory for what I call > overrides. My overrides directories are per-jail and typically > include nothing more than config. files, but it works pretty > handily. The overrides may best be implemented in a seperate > layer... and I don't even know that I would call something like > this a jailfs, more like a globfs or something... I can see > potential uses beyond jails. > > The reasons that I never finished implementing my jailfs with quota > support were primarily, that stackable filesystems seem to be > somewhat of a black-art. Secondarily, I concluded that the time > would be better spent implementing filesystem agnostic quota's in > the vfs layer. A proper design should enable you to do a lot of > fun things, I was thinking something along the lines of just a > simple aggregator that a module could hand function pointers to and > register interest in events, with options like.. just-notify-me > and dont-continue-without-my-approval. Throw in some helpers for > synchronizing module state to disk. The kernel side of this > shouldn't really be very hard, but all of the userland quota > utilities would need to be rewritten as they are tied to UFS at the > block level. This all from about 3 years ago, and I haven't > implemented any of it. I rock! > > Sam Would you be able to write up some design specs for getting all this done? This might be a prime example of something to try to get funding for development. -- Anish Mistry [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCNdwRxqA5ziudZT0RAjDnAJ0ey+K7RiZN0VckLuthoR/NLmuvnACg4RPL kqmIVre97Ar4EKvbf+DQN8s= =BWDp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503141346.41722.mistry.7>